What defines a Daoist?

[thinker]

Maybe we are not that far apart.I specifically said a "movement" to define what is a Daoist. I can see the argument for LZ work but his was not the first work on Dao. But he certainly provided a very organized thought about Dao in a succinct way.

 

I've always taken a somewhat simpler approach. To me a "Daoist" is "someone who practices Daoism". "Daoism" is basically "the doctrine recorded in the DDJ" or, if referring to the movement, "the social movement whose membership consists of the set of all Daoists". Certainly there's room for legitimate discussion as to whether or not part or all of some other works should be included, but I draw the line at going so far afield as to include direct borrowings from either Buddhism or Confucianism, both of which I see as radically different from Daoism.

 

I don't have enough information to determine if the DDJ is a syncretic text or not. Lacking this, I just take it as a presentation of an internally consistent philosophy. If, one day, I come across original sources from that far back sufficient to make that judgement then I will. However, even if the DDJ does turn out to be formed from borrowings from many difference sources that may not make it "syncretic". If, for example, two different sources include the notion that "thou shall not kill", and both influence some philosopher who combines them into a single text that states "thou shall not kill", then I don't think that the resulting text is "syncretic", as it doesn't combine multiple traditions with different content. But I could be wrong. I'm not sure precisely how the term "syncretic" would be used when dealing with the merging of separate, but identical, traditions, or traditions that are different but whose precepts (logically speaking) imply each other.

 

Good list of sources. As soon as I get a decade or so of free time I'll have to try to read them all. I've actually got an English translation of the complete Huainanzi waiting for me on my e-reader (a complete one was finally published just a few months ago), but it's so long it will probably take me forever to get through it.

 

Edited February 26, 2013 by thinker

[thinker]

But your idea to break down the practices and compare them side by side might be an interesting exercise. I would look forward to reading it.

 

I'm afraid that's not something that I'm ever going to write. I was suggesting it as a methodology that you might use to demonstrate your point that the different traditions were, in some sense, the same.

 

Aside from lacking the time or the interest, to me Daoism could fairly accurately be named "anti-Confucianism". Not only do I not believe that the two traditions are similar, but I believe that a large part of Laozi's message could be summarized:

 

"I've had it with the oppressive, Confucian bastards who are running the government. Let's invent guns, line them up against the wall, and mow them down."

 

Human nature hasn't changed that much over the millennia. If someone tells you that in order not to dishonor yourself you need to act in accordance with an etiquette that requires you to signal your lowly status to the world (in other words, grovel when the princess walks by) there are only two possibilities. First, the upper class is a bunch of sadists that get their thrills by making the peasants publicly humiliate themselves. Second, the upper class wants to enshrine submissive behavior into the culture so as to limit both upward mobility and thoughts of revolution. The only good answer to that sort of nonsense is to overthrow the government, and reduce the offending nobility (there might be a few good ones who don't deserve to suffer) to the level of garbage until they learn that the words "dignity" and "respect" apply to everyone. Then they can re-enter society as tradesmen and work their way up from scratch.

 

Among the adjectives that I don't believe apply to Daoism are "Confucian", or "Buddhist".

[mYTHmAKER]

To folks of the Tao,

even if we cannot agree as to what the Tao is.

 

I beg absence of leave for some time as I embarked on my own journey on the Path.

I am seeking for a place to retire in. I wrote of that a bit earlier in my blog. http://shanlung.livejournal.com/140773.html

 

Definately not in Singapore where I have the misfortune to be born in and holding the passport here. Which has the distinction of being the most miserable country in a Gallup polls finding. It also has the distinction of the most unemotional country in another Gallup polls finding.

 

Even when compared to folks of basketcase countries like BanglaDesh or Phillipines.

Even when compared to folks in war torn counties like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

Or even both in one such as in Somali

 

Read that in a blog below.

Singapore. The most miserable people in the world, says Gallup poll

http://singaporedissident.blogspot.sg/2012/12/singapore-most-miserable-people-in.html

Much unlike what the regime here portray as very happy people and all blessings including rising of the sun and falling of rain and blossoming of flowers entirely due to the wise leadership of the government of Singapore. Might amuse you the world 30 top highest politicians are all found in Singapore.

http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.sg/2009/04/top-30-highest-paid-politicians-in.html

 

So before you bad mouth your politicians, think how lucky you are compared to folks in Singapore. They cannot be voted out. So I vote with my feet.

 

To find that place to retire in, I cannot rely on what others say. I need to go there, and live there for 3-4 weeks to see if I will fit in. I live simply and worked long enough not to have to work anymore. I will be going to a few places to check them out.

 

So I will eventually be going to Pokhara, Nepal. To Laos and China.

Probably to Spain and Central America and later to Ecuador.

I dislike cities, preferring hamlets and small towns and close to mountains or the sea.

 

This evening in about ten hours time, I have a bus ticket that will take me to the first of that destination. Taiping of Perak in Malaysia. To be there for 3-4 weeks, followed by XYZ or where ever the Tao lead me to and that I can feel closer to the Tao even if I cannot know what the Tao is.

 

If LZ would have his rathers, I think he probably would rather sit in a bus instead of the back of an ox.

 

 

Obviously I might not be in the Internet , or in it for brief visits.

 

I feel that when I get back here, you all will not be any closer to defining a Taoist , or the Tao or even what fa jing is.

 

Or find you all making a wiser choice of just sitting around and enjoying tea.

 

Idiot on the Path

You might try having a astrological relocation chart drawn up. It can tell you the best places for you for particular goals such as money, creativity, health, relationships, etc.

Tao speed you

Edited February 26, 2013 by mYTHmAKER

[dawei]

I've always taken a somewhat simpler approach. To me a "Daoist" is "someone who practices Daoism". "Daoism" is basically "the doctrine recorded in the DDJ" or, if referring to the movement, "the social movement whose membership consists of the set of all Daoists".

 

This is why I trace Daoism back to Fuxi... He practiced Dao and once we had a well explained text like LZ, then we could see its historical roots and why Daoist look back to him as well. Your reference to movements would seem to include those who moved away from classical [philosophical] Daoism to the more religious variety. So there is some variation and even exclusion in what one might be following vs another, yet both are Daoist, yes?

 

 

Certainly there's room for legitimate discussion as to whether or not part or all of some other works should be included, but I draw the line at going so far afield as to include direct borrowings from either Buddhism or Confucianism, both of which I see as radically different from Daoism.

 

I see it as Yes and No but I don't push the issue. I only gave a link to a well defined movement (or thought) which exists to this day. That Sima Qian said the Daoist is one who takes the 'best of the rest' implies a very interesting observation that the Daoist were not so dogmatic that they couldn't see something good in another thought system, nor would avoid taking that good part. Obviously it implies they purposely did not take other parts.

 

I don't have enough information to determine if the DDJ is a syncretic text or not. Lacking this, I just take it as a presentation of an internally consistent philosophy. If, one day, I come across original sources from that far back sufficient to make that judgement then I will. However, even if the DDJ does turn out to be formed from borrowings from many difference sources that may not make it "syncretic". If, for example, two different sources include the notion that "thou shall not kill", and both influence some philosopher who combines them into a single text that states "thou shall not kill", then I don't think that the resulting text is "syncretic", as it doesn't combine multiple traditions with different content. But I could be wrong. I'm not sure precisely how the term "syncretic" would be used when dealing with the merging of separate, but identical, traditions, or traditions that are different but whose precepts (logically speaking) imply each other.

 

I also made to make sense of its usage by a few scholars and then it seemed to reconcile to my belief that what LZ provides is the first organized explanation which many others had told parts of. So it implies a tradition without any cohesive understanding at the time that they were writing under the same shade of a tree. I see it as exactly what Siam Qian stated: He took the best of the writings meanings about Dao and make it very simple by getting back to the source/base/foundation.

 

Good list of sources. As soon as I get a decade or so of free time I'll have to try to read them all. I've actually got an English translation of the complete Huainanzi waiting for me on my e-reader (a complete one was finally published just a few months ago), but it's so long it will probably take me forever to get through it.

 

Is that the one by Majors and others? I have that one... yes, it is longer than I expected and I've only read small parts. I hope one day to read more of it. As for some of the other texts, they are at least shorter. If there is interest, maybe they can be shared and discussed.

[dawei]

I'm afraid that's not something that I'm ever going to write. I was suggesting it as a methodology that you might use to demonstrate your point that the different traditions were, in some sense, the same.

I see. It was not my point but one of neo-Confucism and traditions today of some religious daoism. I would let an advocate of it pursue an explanation. I am simply aware of it and sometimes meditate on a better understanding.

 

Aside from lacking the time or the interest, to me Daoism could fairly accurately be named "anti-Confucianism". Not only do I not believe that the two traditions are similar, but I believe that a large part of Laozi's message could be summarized:

 

"I've had it with the oppressive, Confucian bastards who are running the government. Let's invent guns, line them up against the wall, and mow them down."

 

I agree to a degree. All the thoughts which arose during the Warring States Period can be distinguished by one another on various points. But more and more scholarship shows that very early on, they were not so antagonistic. The Guodian discovery was a good reminder that people may of been editing LZ to be more anti-Confucian. The bundles contain mixes of Confucian and Daoist thought. Some Guodian chapters show no antagonism yet the received version we have does. So someone has been monkeying with the text.

 

But the strongest indication I find an anti-Confucianism is Chapter 5: 天地不仁

 

Many translate the last two as inhumane, not kind, etc. I think the key word is 仁 (Ren). It's importance in Confucianism is too much to overlook to me. So I read this as "Not REN"; Thus, Heaven and Earth are Not of that cultural attachment of such things as Ren.

 

As to your summarized message above: LZ lived during the Warring State Period. They were reduced to six states fighting for control. I would be inclined to say there was much more militaristic, legalism in most of the leaders than Confucianism.

 

 

Human nature hasn't changed that much over the millennia. If someone tells you that in order not to dishonor yourself you need to act in accordance with an etiquette that requires you to signal your lowly status to the world (in other words, grovel when the princess walks by) there are only two possibilities. First, the upper class is a bunch of sadists that get their thrills by making the peasants publicly humiliate themselves. Second, the upper class wants to enshrine submissive behavior into the culture so as to limit both upward mobility and thoughts of revolution. The only good answer to that sort of nonsense is to overthrow the government, and reduce the offending nobility (there might be a few good ones who don't deserve to suffer) to the level of garbage until they learn that the words "dignity" and "respect" apply to everyone. Then they can re-enter society as tradesmen and work their way up from scratch.

 

Among the adjectives that I don't believe apply to Daoism are "Confucian", or "Buddhist".

 

There is a very interesting book: "Sanctioned Violence in Early China" by Mark Edward Lewis. He does talk about sacrifice, and vengeance as a moral obligation and how the various 'thinker' dealt with this... but I don't think it was only Confucianism which felt that way as each state had their own agenda to become the emperor of the land.

[chenping]

Human nature hasn't changed that much over the millennia. If someone tells you that in order not to dishonor yourself you need to act in accordance with an etiquette that requires you to signal your lowly status to the world (in other words, grovel when the princess walks by) there are only two possibilities. First, the upper class is a bunch of sadists that get their thrills by making the peasants publicly humiliate themselves. Second, the upper class wants to enshrine submissive behavior into the culture so as to limit both upward mobility and thoughts of revolution. The only good answer to that sort of nonsense is to overthrow the government, and reduce the offending nobility (there might be a few good ones who don't deserve to suffer) to the level of garbage until they learn that the words "dignity" and "respect" apply to everyone. Then they can re-enter society as tradesmen and work their way up from scratch.

 

You want a class-less society and believe that Daoism is the way to go. But you, personally, are not free of class identity. As long as you are somebody with a social identity, you need a social structure to fit in. Confucianism is about fitting in.

 

Society is an organism just as the human body is an organism with different parts that fit into a harmonious workable whole. Confucius saw that and assigned each his place in the structure of society. You hate that because you don't like the place assigned you in society and you want equality so no one is better off than you. Well, someone has to be the head and another the asswhole. You don't like that. You want Daoism so no one gets to be the head even if everyone become asswholes.

(Sorry for the mispellings; otherwise, they won't fit in polite conversation.)

Edited February 27, 2013 by chenping

[thinker]

Is that the one by Majors and others? I have that one... yes, it is longer than I expected and I've only read small parts. I hope one day to read more of it. As for some of the other texts, they are at least shorter. If there is interest, maybe they can be shared and discussed.

 

Yes, although I see now that it was first published almost 3 years ago, not several months like I thought.

[thinker]

Some Guodian chapters show no antagonism yet the received version we have does. So someone has been monkeying with the text.

 

But the strongest indication I find an anti-Confucianism is Chapter 5: 天地不仁

 

Many translate the last two as inhumane, not kind, etc. I think the key word is 仁 (Ren). It's importance in Confucianism is too much to overlook to me. So I read this as "Not REN"; Thus, Heaven and Earth are Not of that cultural attachment of such things as Ren.

 

What I've translated of the received version seems to show a fairly uniform anti-Confucianism. One can only go so far in making statements based on the Guodian slips given how much is in the received version that they lack. Overall, the received version is so similar to the matching parts of both the Guodian slips and the Mawangdui silk texts that I don't suspect poor old Wang Bi of too much monkeying yet. But it will be a long time before I finish enough translating of my own to say anything with complete certainty.

 

Curious that you should mention chapter 5. It's come up for me in other conversations elsewhere in the last few days. The fragment that you posted translates as "...the universe is not humane...". The other discussion centers around the question of whether the first part of chapter 5 is implying that this is a good thing or a bad thing. i.e. must one always be humane or are there exceptions.

[Marblehead]

Curious that you should mention chapter 5. It's come up for me in other conversations elsewhere in the last few days. The fragment that you posted translates as "...the universe is not humane...". The other discussion centers around the question of whether the first part of chapter 5 is implying that this is a good thing or a bad thing. i.e. must one always be humane or are there exceptions.

This chapter will always be a matter of contention. We hamans want to believe that the universe (god) is humane. It is not! (The contention results from us trying to place our expectations on the universe. The universe follows its own Tzujan.) The universe's process are 100% natural. The processes of humans are not in so many ways; no value judgements on this though.

[thinker]

You want a class-less society and believe that Daoism is the way to go. But you, personally, are not free of class identity. As long as you are somebody with a social identity, you need a social structure to fit in. Confucianism is about fitting in.

 

Society is an organism just as the human body is an organism with different parts that fit into a harmonious workable whole. Confucius saw that and assigned each his place in the structure of society. You hate that because you don't like the place assigned you in society and you want equality so no one is better off than you. Well, someone has to be the head and another the asswhole. You don't like that. You want Daoism so no one gets to be the head even if everyone become asswholes.

(Sorry for the mispellings; otherwise, they won't fit in polite conversation.)

 

There are an infinite number of "ways to go", Daoism is only one. But you're right, I don't approve of "classes" in society, unless there's such intensive social mobility that people can go back and forth among them at will, based on aptitude, merit, effort, etc... And in no case should one person be allowed to "put" someone else in a class, let alone trap them there.

 

As you say, at least some of Confucianism is about "fitting in". But it shouldn't be necessary to be of a certain class or act in a certain way to fit in. If a garbage man goes to an upper-class golf club after work and hangs around with the millionaire CEO's, then he should be treated exactly as if he were one of them when he does so. Ideally, there should be no mechanism by which anyone else can even find out what his job is, and if they do know they should still accept him as one of their own, even in the privacy of their own thoughts and feelings. I judge a person by what kind of person he is, not his social status, and I believe that this is something that Daoism encourages us to do.

 

Yes, Confucius "saw that and assigned each his place in the structure of society", but who is Confucius to do that? Perhaps garbage men are more to be admired than princes. In that case, shouldn't etiquette demand that princes grovel before garbage men? I don't see that Confucius has any right to say otherwise.

 

As for the rest, forgive me, but you don't know me that well. You say "You hate that because you don't like the place assigned you in society and you want equality so no one is better off than you." You're completely incorrect. I have no problem with lots of people being better off than me. But I'll rise or fall on the basis of what I do, in a society where all options are always open to me, not on the basis of where someone else "puts me", and I won't be trapped in a social class by the need to walk around with some sort of etiquette-based sign on my forehead saying that I belong to such-and-such a social class until someone says differently. You say "...someone has to be the head and another the asswhole. You don't like that. You want Daoism so no one gets to be the head even if everyone become asswholes." Again, you don't know me well enough to say what I like or don't like. I don't mind if having a "head" is necessary to have a prosperous society. Just so long as we have term-limits, and the opportunity to contest and re-contest for the head-ship, based on intelligence, compassion, and other desirable qualities.

 

I've lived at both ends of society's digestive tract, and my attitudes towards liberty and opportunity, and my actions towards others, have always been the same. Confucianism's attitudes in this regard (as poorly as I understand them) are one of the reasons why I reject it.

 

(Don't worry about the misspellings. Even the Dao isn't mighty enough to overcome some constraints. )

[dawei]

Curious that you should mention chapter 5. It's come up for me in other conversations elsewhere in the last few days. The fragment that you posted translates as "...the universe is not humane...".

 

In the past, that was my preferred translate... "not humane". I think it is much better than "inhumane".

 

The other discussion centers around the question of whether the first part of chapter 5 is implying that this is a good thing or a bad thing. i.e. must one always be humane or are there exceptions.

 

That seems to be similar to the Xiang'er manuscript commentary thought:

 

"Heaven and Earth are patterned on the Dao. They are humane to all those who are good, in humane to all those who do evil. Thus when they destroy the myriad things, it is the evil whom they hate and whom they view as if they were grass or domestic dogs". -- Bokenkamp in Early Daoist Scriptures

[chenping]

As you say, at least some of Confucianism is about "fitting in". But it shouldn't be necessary to be of a certain class or act in a certain way to fit in. If a garbage man goes to an upper-class golf club after work and hangs around with the millionaire CEO's, then he should be treated exactly as if he were one of them when he does so.

 

If he were one of them, he would be a millionaire CEO and not a garbage man!

 

Look, we have a lot to iron out and I like it that we are so far apart in our thinking. Have you considered two matters of fact? Firstly, society of the free kind in the USA or the unfree kind in the PRC (People's Republic of China) is made up of classes. This has nothing to do with political ideology but everything to do with human nature which, like good whiskey, never varies. We are class-bound creatures. It's in our psychological DNA. Secondly, Daoism came out of ancient China's elitist culture. The top guns who created and were into the DDJ, the I Ching, Doctrine of the Mean, Art of War, and stuff like that, all of them believed in the Mandate of Heaven, not democracy. There is no way you could convince them that a garbage man is cut out to ascend the Dragon Throne as Son of Heaven.

 

And I believe the mind-set is the same at any premier private country club in egalitarian America. Forget the garbage man, the initiation fees at these citadels of wealth are so high that even single-digit millionaire CEOs need not apply. And when the fees to get in are ridiculously low (like several thousand bucks) at the Augusta National Golf Club, it is only by invitation from those Sons of Heaven at the Club. To those folks, even money is not classy enough.

 

Why are you fixated on the garbage man's social status? Isn't a man's dignity based on having enough to eat?

[ChiDragon]

Received Version of Chapter 15 - Decription of the Taoists

Chapter 15
1. 古之善為道者，
2.微妙玄通，
3.深不可識。
4. 夫唯不可識，
5. 故強為之容。
6. 豫兮若冬涉川；
7. 猶兮若畏四鄰；
8. 儼兮其若客；
9. 渙兮其若凌釋；
10. 敦兮其若樸；
11. 曠兮其若谷；
12. 混兮其若濁；
13. 孰能濁以靜之徐清?
14. 孰能安以動之徐生?
15. 保此道者不欲盈。
16. 夫唯不盈
17. 故能蔽而新成


Chapter 15
1. In the ancient, those who devoted to the principles of Tao;
2. Are subtle and beyond comprehension,
3. Profound but inscrutable.
4. Since they are inscrutable,
5. Therefore, they were described with reluctance as:
6. Cautious as in winter stepping on river,
7. Vigilant as being four-way ambushed,
8. Punctilious as a guest,
9. Harmonious as thawing ice,
10. Primitive as raw stock,
11. Vast as valley in the mountain,
12. Confused as turbid water.
13. Who can be calmed from disturbance and become cleared?
14. Who can be motivated from stagnate to move forward?
15. Those who kept Tao's principle but not contented.
16. Because of being not contented,
17. One can discard the obsolescence and renew.

Edited March 2, 2013 by ChiDragon

[zerostao]

chi dragon !!!!!!

welcome back and i was recently reviewing your atp thread.

that calming from disturbance and becoming clear , yeah

[Stosh]

Does it not need some correction somewhere around lines 15 or 16 for the passage to make a cohesive whole?

And-Or a separation between lines 11 and 12?

[ChiDragon]

@Zerostao............

@Stosh.......
I had changed the punctuations in lines 11 and 12 and revised lines 16 and 17. Is that what you had in mind.....??? If not, please be more explicit or specific. Perhaps show me the corrections. Thanks.

[drifting cloud]

Which Chapter is this? I would like to look at the Chinese text before I reply.

 

Is that ok with you?

 

Hey Tataaki,

 

I don't know if anyone responded to you about this. My apologies if this is a repeat. It is from Chapter 42. Here is the Chinese text:

 

道生一。

一生二。

二生三。

三生萬物。

 

To reply to the OP: Personally I don't think being a Daoist has anything to do with belief or concepts. I think this is a holdover from Protestant Christianity, where one's identity is based on particular beliefs (i.e. in predestination, in the infallibility of the Pope, in the death and resurrection of Jesus, etc).

 

To me, Daoism is something you do, not a set of beliefs or propositions. Daoist "identity" is based on practice, i.e. a Daoist is somebody who engages in Daoist cultivation practices, i.e. nourishing life, inner alchemy, etc.

 

From this perspective, a Barnes & Noble "Daoist" who has read a bunch of translations of the DDJ and knows a bunch of concepts but doesn't practice isn't really a Daoist, even if they call themselves that. An illiterate person who has never read the DDJ but who diligently practices is a Daoist whether they call themselves one or not.

 

I could of course be quite wrong about this. But I think in general East Asian religion is better understood as something you do rather than something you believe. Westerners are generally caught up in our heads and are obsessed with concepts, beliefs, etc.

 

[Marblehead]

To me, Daoism is something you do, ...

 

 

An illiterate person who has never read the DDJ but who diligently practices is a Daoist whether they call themselves one or not.

Yeah!

[chenping]

Drifting Cloud, may I reply to your post?

 

The distinction you have made between the Daoist practitioner of tradition (Chinese, Korean, Japanese?) and the "Barnes & Noble" Daoist (of the west) has been discussed at length here at Tao Bum, as I noticed. You seem to be leaning towards the Daoist practioner (of tradition) who "does it" and not the other kind of Daoist who just "think about it".

 

Philosophical Daoism is a recent phenomenon in the west. It hasn't really "taken root" as yet because the philosophy is still gestating. Also, the various translations don't make it easy to pin down anything practicable. At any rate, philosophical Daoism is definitely not traditional Daoism. But thinking is also doing in a mental sense. From reflection comes an attitude that imperceptibly influence the way one lives. Doesn't that count as practice?

[Mo Tzu]

"Philosophical Daoism" from my perspective is only part of the tao. The pakua is a taoist symbol, and each direction is a subject of taoist life to be learnt to better oneself to get into heaven. One of these directions (NW) is philosophy, but there are 7 more:- (N) Internal Exercises, (NE) Food Diet, (E) Herb Diet, (SE) Healing Others, (S) Sexology, (SW) Management and finally the eigth (W) is the I Ching.

A taoist will study all these subjects to speed up their evolution (and others who they come into contact with). This way of study also enables the whole body to be connected with the 8 directions (space and time).

This approach and application to one's life I feel is what makes a taoist.

Then that person's personality can shine through, and they will have their interets eg. bagua, calligraphy, knitting etc.

but their aim is to get themselves and others into heaven.

It is not whether or not it's East or West, heaven dictates and humans take orders from heaven. When something goes well we thank heaven, when something goes wrong we should inspect ourselves.

Is this what makes a taoist. Surely?

[drifting cloud]

Drifting Cloud, may I reply to your post?

 

The distinction you have made between the Daoist practitioner of tradition (Chinese, Korean, Japanese?) and the "Barnes & Noble" Daoist (of the west) has been discussed at length here at Tao Bum, as I noticed. You seem to be leaning towards the Daoist practioner (of tradition) who "does it" and not the other kind of Daoist who just "think about it".

 

Philosophical Daoism is a recent phenomenon in the west. It hasn't really "taken root" as yet because the philosophy is still gestating. Also, the various translations don't make it easy to pin down anything practicable. At any rate, philosophical Daoism is definitely not traditional Daoism. But thinking is also doing in a mental sense. From reflection comes an attitude that imperceptibly influence the way one lives. Doesn't that count as practice?

 

Hi Chenping,

 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Just to clarify I think Westerners can be authentic practitioners of tradition as well. And I agree with you 100% that reflection is important as well. But there's a big difference to me between reflection which is rooted in one's experience of practice, and reflection that is just kind of free floating, based on purely on words on a page of a mistranslations or "modern interpretations" of an ancient text, which they encounter without any kind of context.

 

So my problem is not with Daoists who do philosophy, or with those who reflect on their practice. My problem is with those who do nothing but engage in word-chopping and disputation and call themselves "Daoists", and there are an awful lot of those. There's a Buddhist term that is appropriate here, papañca, which means "conceptual proliferation", i.e. spinning a web of concepts and then getting stuck in it. There are a lot of self-described "Daoists" who don't practice but just papañcize. These I call the "Barnes and Noble Daoists". At the end of the day I think Daoist philosophy can only be truly understood through practice and by placing it in the context of practice.

 

I think "philosophical Daoism" is an imperialist construct, personally; it's basically Westerners extracting what they think is "spiritual" from the tradition while discarding what they consider to be "superstition". The narrative of two Daoisms, one philosophical one religious, has been mostly abandoned by scholars and isn't really acknowledged by traditional Daoists. This narrative was unfortunately fed into by Confucian native informants during the early 20th century who wanted to adopt Western standards and were embarrassed by their "backwards" culture.

[Marblehead]

I think "philosophical Daoism" is an imperialist construct, personally; it's basically Westerners extracting what they think is "spiritual" from the tradition while discarding what they consider to be "superstition".

And then there are folks like myself who have discarded both and hold to only the philosophy. Yes, I am a Philosophical Taoist and I do walk my talk. I am also an Atheist so one can easily understand why I have discarded both.

[taijistudent]

For me a Daoist is a student one who knows it is a belief but it open to changing the belief into something he/she knows. A work in progress.

[Marblehead]

A work in progress.

Yes, it should always be that. But too, being a Daoist is to be as natural as one can be. The other aspects of Daoism are natural for me.

[flowing hands]

A Daoist is someone who doesn't know they are a Daoist. They are a doer of their thoughts and have insight into what is really going on and act accordingly. They understand the core and nature of things and so walk their path with this acquired wisdom. They understand the great magic and beauty of all life and all its different ways, they understand the very principle that nourishes all life and practice it. They understand the balance of life and death, so don't interfere.

 

So many people get caught up in the philosophizing thoughts and tools that can lead to cultivation, but miss the main point and the spirit of the Dao.